Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On June 10 2025 16:13 Liquid`Drone wrote: If you're in a country because you overstayed your visa, you were supposed to leave the country on your own when (or before) your visa expired. Being sent back to your country of origin seems like a very suitable punishment for not doing that - because it's exactly what you were supposed to have done yourself. Honestly, it hardly even qualifies as punishment - it's like if you steal something, and someone takes back what you stole.
Now there are several caveats to my 'yes' to that poll (Kwark covered most), but in principle, I am definitely a clear yes. . Anyway - aside from what Kwark covered, I think the difficult situation is when there are children involved, because there is a point where they have no relationship with the country of origin of their parents and they obviously have no personal responsibility for their situation. At the same time, the argument that 'well, but then you incentivize getting a baby/hiding your kid for a prolonged period of time' isn't without merit. Still - if we're talking about an undocumented mom of a 10 year old who has lived in the US for 10 years, I'm definitely opposed to deporting her, with or without the kid, as this is too cruel.
Additionally I'm also in principle a big fan of a more accepting asylum seeking process so that more people could enter, get documentation, have the same rights and responsibilities as other inhabitants. I'm also on board with some policies in the vein of 'well if you've been here for x amount of years and you've done nothing wrong and you're a productive member of your community and society then we might give you amnesty' - but as a general principle, being sent back to your home country is a just and fitting consequence of having overstayed your visa, or of having entered outside a legal port of entry.
I also think western countries should focus far, far more on 'worldly equitability', so that we can genuinely help improving conditions in other countries, so the prospect of leaving your country of origin for the possibility of working two sub-minimum wage jobs to barely scrape by wouldn't be an attractive prospect for millions of people.
Many people are overstaying their visas for valid reasons. They're not - as the conservatives like to pretend - subhumans doing subhuman things. They're exactly like you and I. You could be an illegal migrant right now. I could be one, too. We're no different from them.
I'm with drone on this one. If you overstay your visa, getting deported is not really a punishment, assuming it is done humanely.
For cases of someone living undocumented for years with no criminal history and effectively have been living like role models, I'd set an automatic legalisation route of some sort. Removing them from the community doesn't really accomplish anything other than cruelty.
The problem is that people answered "yes". They're not - unlike yourself - considering illegal immigrants' histories on a case by case basis. They're just calling for the deportation of all illegal immigrants regardless of reasons, causes or promising alternatives.
Edit:
I think if the poll had a third option such as "it depends" (i.e. case by case basis), maybe some people would've voted for that option instead of preferring blanket deportation for all illegal immigrants. I don't know, I'm hoping people voted with their gut in this poll without thinking about it or doing research. Because the more research I do, the more I learn about the lives of illegal immigrants, the more I realize many of them don't deserve deportation (including some who have committed petty crime, but that's a view that can be more controversial).
In reality I think there are cases where the answer regarding deportation should be "hell yeah, deport them immediately" (such as robbery or murder, obviously) and in other instances the answer should be "hell no, please keep them" (such as no crimes being committed, working productively, fleeing from violence and abuse, etc.)
There are far too many instances where the "hell no" option should apply, and not seriously considering this option is a huge blunder.
In all honesty, if they're an undocumented immigrant found guilty of a crime, petty or otherwise, there would have to be a really good reason to not automatically deport them in my view.
On June 10 2025 16:13 Liquid`Drone wrote: If you're in a country because you overstayed your visa, you were supposed to leave the country on your own when (or before) your visa expired. Being sent back to your country of origin seems like a very suitable punishment for not doing that - because it's exactly what you were supposed to have done yourself. Honestly, it hardly even qualifies as punishment - it's like if you steal something, and someone takes back what you stole.
Now there are several caveats to my 'yes' to that poll (Kwark covered most), but in principle, I am definitely a clear yes. . Anyway - aside from what Kwark covered, I think the difficult situation is when there are children involved, because there is a point where they have no relationship with the country of origin of their parents and they obviously have no personal responsibility for their situation. At the same time, the argument that 'well, but then you incentivize getting a baby/hiding your kid for a prolonged period of time' isn't without merit. Still - if we're talking about an undocumented mom of a 10 year old who has lived in the US for 10 years, I'm definitely opposed to deporting her, with or without the kid, as this is too cruel.
Additionally I'm also in principle a big fan of a more accepting asylum seeking process so that more people could enter, get documentation, have the same rights and responsibilities as other inhabitants. I'm also on board with some policies in the vein of 'well if you've been here for x amount of years and you've done nothing wrong and you're a productive member of your community and society then we might give you amnesty' - but as a general principle, being sent back to your home country is a just and fitting consequence of having overstayed your visa, or of having entered outside a legal port of entry.
I also think western countries should focus far, far more on 'worldly equitability', so that we can genuinely help improving conditions in other countries, so the prospect of leaving your country of origin for the possibility of working two sub-minimum wage jobs to barely scrape by wouldn't be an attractive prospect for millions of people.
Many people are overstaying their visas for valid reasons. They're not - as the conservatives like to pretend - subhumans doing subhuman things. They're exactly like you and I. You could be an illegal migrant right now. I could be one, too. We're no different from them.
I'm with drone on this one. If you overstay your visa, getting deported is not really a punishment, assuming it is done humanely.
For cases of someone living undocumented for years with no criminal history and effectively have been living like role models, I'd set an automatic legalisation route of some sort. Removing them from the community doesn't really accomplish anything other than cruelty.
The problem is that people answered "yes". They're not - unlike yourself - considering illegal immigrants' histories on a case by case basis. They're just calling for the deportation of all illegal immigrants regardless of reasons, causes or promising alternatives.
Edit:
I think if the poll had a third option such as "it depends" (i.e. case by case basis), maybe some people would've voted for that option instead of preferring blanket deportation for all illegal immigrants. I don't know, I'm hoping people voted with their gut in this poll without thinking about it or doing research. Because the more research I do, the more I learn about the lives of illegal immigrants, the more I realize many of them don't deserve deportation (including some who have committed petty crime, but that's a view that can be more controversial).
In reality I think there are cases where the answer regarding deportation should be "hell yeah, deport them immediately" (such as robbery or murder, obviously) and in other instances the answer should be "hell no, please keep them" (such as no crimes being committed, working productively, fleeing from violence and abuse, etc.)
There are far too many instances where the "hell no" option should apply, and not seriously considering this option is a huge blunder.
In all honesty, if they're an undocumented immigrant found guilty of a crime, petty or otherwise, there would have to be a really good reason to not automatically deport them in my view.
And that's where I ask the question: do we know their situation, their history, their motives? Do we know anything? I've read about a few cases, but I can't possibly know their reality because, well, they're too afraid to talk openly about their situation. How can you and I judge them?
I try to put myself into their shoes. First of all, I would have a criminal record myself if I had been caught for the dozens of instances of petty theft that I've committed many years ago. I've just never been caught. Should I get deported? Well, I'm an upstanding citizen, I work regular jobs, everything's fine. But none of that matters, because I couldn't even lawfully get deported since I'm a born national. And that's literally the only thing that separates me from many illegal immigrants. Some of them haven't even committed any crimes (other than staying illegally), and yet people voted "yes" for deporting them. The majority of people in this thread voted to deport those who are better people than myself - just because they're in the country illegally. Not because they're a problem in the community. They might be quite the productive members - but it doesn't matter, deport them.
So you can see, the bar is quite high for illegal immigrants. We're not even at the point of discussing instances of petty crime. We're not even in favor of letting upstanding immigrants stay - just because they overstayed their visa. This is why I'm asking people to reconsider. I'm NOT asking people to agree with my take on not always deporting small crime. That's a controversial take, I don't want to argue that right now. I'm only asking people to agree with me on not deporting innocent people.
On June 10 2025 05:15 blomsterjohn wrote: I'm gonna take an outrageous bet and say that he was very obviously being sarcastic
Mayhaps I was joining in?
No it doesn't look like that. It looks like more of your woke scolding behavior when you try to convince people who already agree with you to agree with you more by just being an ass to them about the thing you already agree about.
I was being sarcastic. Glad you're opposed to being an ass to people you agree with, looking forward to you implementing that yourself.
I get thats what you want it to look like but the fact that someone else posted the post you responded to shows you failed, instead of owning up to your failure you have to double down on your infalability by trying to confuse people. Its not clever GH and you've never given anyone a reason to care what you're looking forward too so why should I start now?
Actually it seems you are correct. While it does seem that she was between the police and protestors, it also seem like she was shot in the leg. So yes my bad.
If you have any more doubts, here are some videos of LAPD trampling protesters:
I dont. Initially I for some reason though that she was shot in the back, which, while unfortunate, could have been mistake. After rewatching video it became clear she was hit in the leg. That pretty much mean that cop who did that should be fired because either: A - did it on purpose B - is grossly incompetent. I mean, on this distance I do better with a bow, let alone crossbow or a gun, and I am not a trained officer.
Deporting illegal immigrants after due process is just, well, normal? That doesn't mean there shouldn't be a path to citizenship for edge cases/people that are allready in a country for decades but why wouldn't you deport illegal immigrants that just "jumped" over the border or overstayed their visa (or they were on asylum and their country is deemed safe to return)? If they are criminals it's a total no brainer.
The important part is that there has to be a fair, just and reasonably quick(!) process to do so.
On June 10 2025 17:50 Velr wrote: Deporting illegal immigrants after due process is just, well, normal? That doesn't mean there shouldn't be a path to citizenship for edge cases/people that are allready in a country for decades but why wouldn't you deport illegal immigrants that just "jumped" over the border or overstayed their visa (or they were on asylum and their country is deemed safe to return)? If they are criminals it's a total no brainer.
The important part is that there has to be a fair, just and reasonably quick(!) process to do so.
Sometimes people's country is safe, but their home is not. That's one of the cases in the article. That woman should not be forced to return, but she will be forced if she's found out.
Why the marines specifically? Going from land to land doesn't sound like their job. Or is he gonna invade LA from the bay?
Is it just because he knows the name and they are supposed to be tough?
escalation is the point apparently. send in Feds where they are not welcome - to a sanctuary city enforcing laws contrary to state law AND common sense in how ridiculously ruthless and forceful everything is being handled - then wait for shit to hit the fan and escalate further. while claiming "Democrat cities are out of control - I had to do it"
nice little reprieve from the Musk story really, like jangling keys in front of a child as we are now dealing with this new shit. and his supporters appreciate the red meat and "owning the Libs".
typical Trump playing a dangerous game with other people's lives as they are just a means to an end for him.
Why the marines specifically? Going from land to land doesn't sound like their job. Or is he gonna invade LA from the bay?
Is it just because he knows the name and they are supposed to be tough?
escalation is the point apparently. send in Feds where they are not welcome - to a sanctuary city enforcing laws contrary to state law AND common sense in how ridiculously ruthless and forceful everything is being handled - then wait for shit to hit the fan and escalate further. while claiming "Democrat cities are out of control - I had to do it"
nice little reprieve from the Musk story really, like jangling keys in front of a child as we are now dealing with this new shit. and his supporters appreciate the red meat and "owning the Libs".
typical Trump playing a dangerous game with other people's lives as they are just a means to an end for him.
Yeah, that part i got, that is classic fascist playbook. Create a crisis, then beat it down with brutality to establish what a big strong man you are, and to discourage any further opposition.
I meant why specifically the marines. Isn't their job mostly landing in enemy territory and stuff like that?
Why the marines specifically? Going from land to land doesn't sound like their job. Or is he gonna invade LA from the bay?
Is it just because he knows the name and they are supposed to be tough?
It's because they are the pinnacle of discipline and skill and professionalism.
now that is sarcasm I can get behind!
Arguably the airborne are a comparable choice. Either works and there isn't really a wrong choice, and you don't need particularly a lot of them.
It's obviously not a special forces or Navy SEALs job. You have federal agents, they're under attack and you need manpower support to defend them. National guard is the go-to choice. But you also need an elite unit to support, provide a backbone and for any contingencies. Especially if you are in a situation where you can't rely on local law enforcement to do their jobs, although Bass and Newsom have tried to walk back some against the violence.
On June 09 2025 16:42 Jankisa wrote: I'm on the left, I'm not from the USA and I would have no problem with any government dealing with people in the country illegally if it was done in the correct way as prescribed by the laws of the country in question.
However, what is and has been happening in the US is quite unique.
We have a country that has had, for many decades a very fast and loose approach to illegal immigration, there is a whole shadow economy (billions of taxes paid by these people) of millions upon millions of people who come to the US for work, there is not enough (deliberately) time for the courts to process them and there are huge waiting lists. These people came to the US with this in mind, they know this is how it works for decades and they came as low paid labor, low paid exactly because of their illegal status.
Now you have a "movement" based on racism, that should be very clear to everyone, like any other right wing movement it needs an enemy and "the illegals" have been a nice little scapegoat for Republicans for all of these decades. Now it's escalating and people who welcome these folks, people who have been friends and neighbors with them for, again, decades are resisting these people who tried doing everything right, brought money into the economy and in the case of California greatly contributed to it being one of the most prosperous and biggest economies in the world are being whisked away by masked federal agents, often without any due process.
That is why people are rightfully angry, there was a social contract for decades that everyone understood and it's changing, it's OK for it to change if the country voted for that, but the way that it's being done is fucked up and people are angry.
People who do violence, burn cars and riot are, as always, completely detrimental to this and fuck them, no violence and damage to property is justified when there are peaceful means of protest available.
People who pretend like poor Republicans did everything to curb illegal immigration and evil Biden did open borders are, as usual, completely full of shit.
Republicans voted down a law supported by the president and the opposition party because their god king said they should do so so he has a political talking point for elections, so every single right wing sympathizer here who's pretending like this is all a left side problem is, as usual, completely hypocritical and full of shit.
The biggest victims are, of course, the people who came to your country, went through the actual process and didn't complete it in time so they get picked up by these vile goons while attending the process, of course, the black holes of empathy that are defending ICE here don't give a fuck because their are either brainwashed, too cynical or just straight up racist.
I admit i find much if what you post absurdly histrionic but I would like to commend this post in particular, or at least the first few paragraphs, for it's honesty and for its condemnation of violence. The thing is, lots of people would agree with the thrust of your argument! At least wrt letting people stay. Until recently that was the majority polling position. Part of what Biden's border crisis and its effects did was change public opinion to be massively more in favor of internal enforcement. And make no mistake, from the very first week where Biden revoked Remain in Mexico, to the last year when he began using the CBP One app to "pre-parole" thousands of border crossers, Biden was implementing bad policy with disastrous consequences. In many cases these choices (such as the mass paroling) was using a statute in way it was never meant to be used. And of course the idea that it wasn't his fault is also belied by the fact that Trump returned to office and the crisis disappeared!
But that aside, many, though never all, were ok with the current arrangement. but the flood during the last four years was in itself a violation of that implicit agreement. And it's not just white racist Republicans, some of the areas that swung the hardest towards Trump were Latino immigrant communities, especially along the Texas border. So while I find much of what you wrote at least arguable I would say your analysis of people's motivations to be underdeveloped.
I would like to know, since you are obviously very much in the weeds on this conversation how does this all interact with the voting down of a bipartisan immigration bill in 2023?
I'm not an expert but from a cursory look at this article:
I can see that some of the things that you had a big issues with and mentioned such as the parole thing would be removed, it would, for all extents and purposes be the most strict immigration bill since Regan and it had full support of Democrats and Biden.
The person who torpedoed this bill was Trump. I also mentioned that in my initial comment but for some reason you skipped over it in order to attack Biden again.
I think everyone here would agree that Biden's immigration policy was an incredible own goal, but the fact is that someone who thinks and actually believes that "the flood" of immigration to the US is a crisis and one of the biggest problems for the country ever would not sabotage the bill that was created by both Republicans and Democrats in order to curb that.
For me, from outside looking in, deliberately stopping a bill that would prevent more people from getting in and then using cruel and highly questionable methods to "fix" this problem is incredibly problematic and fucked up.
So from what I recall there were three big, closely related objections to the bill put forward...
1) Biden didn't need it. Under the laws as they existed Biden could have kept the border secure. His argument that Congress needed to give him more authority was a political pass-the-buck excuse. I think the state of the border pre and pos Biden make this argument at least facially credible.
2) It would have codified a worse state of affairs. That bill made a bunch of detrimental changes that would have codified a worse set of laws (including setting explicit targets for what counted as too many encounters in a certain time frame) that would have set a terrible precedent.
3) Biden was untrustworthy. He was already stretching and abusing the language of the relevant laws and there was great distrust of him for it, with the belief being that any deference given the president would be abused and even ignored.
Did Trump oppose it for political reasons? Sure. But the whole point of the bill was political, it was to pass off to Congress (and Republicans who would oppose it) the mistakes of the Biden administration. Recall they refused to call it a crisis for YEARS. They wouldn't even acknowledge what was happening! All that even while Biden's approval on the matter was tanking.
Finally, I will mention something briefly hinted to in the article. GOP voters are incredibly skeptical of Democrats and most other Republicans on the issue of borders and immigration. Reagan did make a deal on amnesty, but Congress (with Dem house) was supposed to follow up the amnesty part with tough border measures to make sure the problem would be solved. Congress, mainly because of Democrats, went back on that and never passed it. It's been reported, although I don't recall by who, that one of Reagan's biggest regrets was not getting the border security part done and letting it be split from amnesty. Ever since, even those Republican voters who favor a path to citizenship, have been very distrusting of anyone they suspect of being a squish. So therefore being a Republican in Congress who supports a bill without incredibly rigorous security measures and amnesty delayed until *after* the border is secure is taking a big risk. So it was always in thin ice, because the voters for these GOP senators were going to scrutinize them very carefully anyways.
Point 3 feels a ridiculous quibble given Donald Trump exists.
Point 2 I’m unsure what the issue is here. Maybe I’m misreading or misremembering. If one considers x as a problem, surely you need some calculus as to how much of x is a big problem no? How is having targets in this domain bad? If I’m misunderstanding your point and it’s referring to something else, I’ll stand corrected
On 1, maybe? Again I don’t really know, I’m not au fait with the specifics. Isn’t the stock conservative argument against an Imperial President and bypassing Congress?
I will concede ignorance as to some of the specifics here, intuitively it feels like a stretch.
Point 3 exists entirely independent of Trump. This isn't the only time it happened either, first things that spring to mind are his attempts at student loan forgiveness and the eviction moratorium.
having a cutoff was bad because it was in a way allowing all encounters under that number. Just as an idea 4000/day (which I think was the number) is almost 1.5 million in a year. When you combine that with the fact that using the laws already on the books it was possible to make that number almost zero...
Number one is related to the other two. Congress had already done what it needed to do! Decades before! The whole exercise was theater from the beginning.
If Trump and the Republicans were serious about this being a crisis and a huge problem (for which they are now escalating violence and basically, against their will, forcing states to "fix" a problem that these states don't believe they have) they would have worked, and the bi-partisan nature of the bill implied that some of the Republicans tried around the issues they had with the bill instead of torpedoing it and never attempting to work on it again, instead waiting for elections.
Obviously, you decided that couldn't be done because Biden wasn't trustworthy (but Trump is, jesus buddy) so it's OK to do insane things that the vast majority of the people in this state don't want (and voted accordingly) in order to escalate things, and get them to a point where American citizens might be gunned down in the streets by American soldiers.
This is what you are defending, you are defending senseless escalation of already tense moment in a Country and in the State that doesn't want this because, frankly, you obviously hate immigrants more then you love your country.
On June 10 2025 17:50 Velr wrote: Deporting illegal immigrants after due process is just, well, normal? That doesn't mean there shouldn't be a path to citizenship for edge cases/people that are allready in a country for decades but why wouldn't you deport illegal immigrants that just "jumped" over the border or overstayed their visa (or they were on asylum and their country is deemed safe to return)? If they are criminals it's a total no brainer.
The important part is that there has to be a fair, just and reasonably quick(!) process to do so.
Sometimes people's country is safe, but their home is not. That's one of the cases in the article. That woman should not be forced to return, but she will be forced if she's found out.
Edge cases are edge cases because they don't normally apply. I have no problem with governments deporting undocumented people when they get found out generally. I also think that if you've been living undocumented for 5-10 years and you're a model citizen, there should be an automatic route for you to legalise your situation.
On June 10 2025 16:13 Liquid`Drone wrote: If you're in a country because you overstayed your visa, you were supposed to leave the country on your own when (or before) your visa expired. Being sent back to your country of origin seems like a very suitable punishment for not doing that - because it's exactly what you were supposed to have done yourself. Honestly, it hardly even qualifies as punishment - it's like if you steal something, and someone takes back what you stole.
Now there are several caveats to my 'yes' to that poll (Kwark covered most), but in principle, I am definitely a clear yes. . Anyway - aside from what Kwark covered, I think the difficult situation is when there are children involved, because there is a point where they have no relationship with the country of origin of their parents and they obviously have no personal responsibility for their situation. At the same time, the argument that 'well, but then you incentivize getting a baby/hiding your kid for a prolonged period of time' isn't without merit. Still - if we're talking about an undocumented mom of a 10 year old who has lived in the US for 10 years, I'm definitely opposed to deporting her, with or without the kid, as this is too cruel.
Additionally I'm also in principle a big fan of a more accepting asylum seeking process so that more people could enter, get documentation, have the same rights and responsibilities as other inhabitants. I'm also on board with some policies in the vein of 'well if you've been here for x amount of years and you've done nothing wrong and you're a productive member of your community and society then we might give you amnesty' - but as a general principle, being sent back to your home country is a just and fitting consequence of having overstayed your visa, or of having entered outside a legal port of entry.
I also think western countries should focus far, far more on 'worldly equitability', so that we can genuinely help improving conditions in other countries, so the prospect of leaving your country of origin for the possibility of working two sub-minimum wage jobs to barely scrape by wouldn't be an attractive prospect for millions of people.
Many people are overstaying their visas for valid reasons. They're not - as the conservatives like to pretend - subhumans doing subhuman things. They're exactly like you and I. You could be an illegal migrant right now. I could be one, too. We're no different from them.
I'm with drone on this one. If you overstay your visa, getting deported is not really a punishment, assuming it is done humanely.
For cases of someone living undocumented for years with no criminal history and effectively have been living like role models, I'd set an automatic legalisation route of some sort. Removing them from the community doesn't really accomplish anything other than cruelty.
The problem is that people answered "yes". They're not - unlike yourself - considering illegal immigrants' histories on a case by case basis. They're just calling for the deportation of all illegal immigrants regardless of reasons, causes or promising alternatives.
Edit:
I think if the poll had a third option such as "it depends" (i.e. case by case basis), maybe some people would've voted for that option instead of preferring blanket deportation for all illegal immigrants. I don't know, I'm hoping people voted with their gut in this poll without thinking about it or doing research. Because the more research I do, the more I learn about the lives of illegal immigrants, the more I realize many of them don't deserve deportation (including some who have committed petty crime, but that's a view that can be more controversial).
In reality I think there are cases where the answer regarding deportation should be "hell yeah, deport them immediately" (such as robbery or murder, obviously) and in other instances the answer should be "hell no, please keep them" (such as no crimes being committed, working productively, fleeing from violence and abuse, etc.)
There are far too many instances where the "hell no" option should apply, and not seriously considering this option is a huge blunder.
The purpose of the poll was simply to establish if the leftist cucks of the US Pol thread were blanket opposed to such enforcement or not.
And if the US was tougher on it, Elon Musk wouldn’t be a billionaire today in all likelihood, so there would be benefits.
But no, overall I’d be much more in favour of paths to citizenship or more generosity re asylum claims, but then we’re not really talking about illegal migrants.
You also have the matter of, while an illegal migrant may have a better quality of life than they would elsewhere, they’re also not able to fully avail of the benefits of the society that they’re contributing to due to their status. It ain’t generally illegal migrants getting rich off illegal migrants.
Fortunately Trump is facing fairly strong resistance.
So far the only upside for him is that this has created a decent distraction from Elon's Epstein island "truth bomb" (if we actually want to call it that).
@WombaT It's fine, I think the poll has had quite a positive effect. The discussion around illegal immigrants is very important, and we just learned that people - not just right-wingers - are heavily in support of mass deportation. It appears to me that almost anyone in this thread who's not far left actually supports it - we just didn't realize it before. That's very useful to know because it highlights a need for discussion not just with the right, but also among moderates.
EPT
